A.  States are permitted to limit campaigns to certain subject matters, i.e., youth groups, services to the aged, or cancer organizations. But once they define the subject matter they cannot discriminate against, or unreasonably exclude, an individual group that otherwise qualifies.  In Connecticut, the State said that it was essentially open to all charities which meet nondiscrimination requirements, but then excluded only Boy Scouts on this basis even though dozens of other charities likewise had restrictive membership criteria. State officials made it clear that they did not like Boy Scouts' viewpoint on homosexuality.  That is unconstitutional discrimination against Boy Scouts under the First Amendment.


Q.  How much money is at stake here?

A.  State employees contributed about $10,000 per year to Connecticut Boy Scout councils through the charitable campaign.  Since most or all Boy Scout councils participate in local campaigns, this issue is worth millions of dollars to Boy Scout councils nationally.


Q.  Do the organizations that receive contributions from state employees cover the cost of the campaign?  Do state employees work on the campaign on state time?

A.  The State does not contribute to the State Committee's budget or fund the operations of the Charitable Campaign;  operating costs are borne by the participating charities.  While State employees may work on the Campaign on state time, even the Second Circuit recognized that "the State does not contribute to the Committee's budget or fund the operations of the Campaign. Operating costs are furnished by the participating charities."  Wyman, 335 F.3d at 84.


Q.  Are Boy Scouts suing to keep government funding?  Are Boy Scouts trying to use the courts to force government to donate to them or facilitate donations to them?

A.  No.  The State is not funding or subsidizing or donating to Boy Scouts in any way.  Instead, the State is preventing Boy Scouts from access to private funds sought to be donated to the Scouts through the private decisions of employees acting in their private capacities. 


Q.  Didn't Boy Scouts of America already win its First Amendment rights in the Supreme Court?  How can Boy Scouts insist on being a private organization and also insist on being part of a public program?

A.  In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), the United States Supreme Court held that states could not apply antidiscrimination statutes so as to interfere with Boy Scouts leadership decisions which are protected by the First Amendment.  The lower courts in the Wyman case disagreed, however, and said that states can interfere with those decisions by excluding Boy Scouts from a charitable campaign.  That is why we are asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case.  We believe that, under Dale, the State of Connecticut cannot use Boy Scouts' leadership decisions as justification for excluding Boy Scouts from a charitable campaign open to 900 other charities.

Q.  Aren't Boy Scouts different from other organizations because they exclude gays and atheists?

A.  No. Many of the 900 charities that participate in Connecticut's campaign focus their services or limit their membership on the basis of sex, age, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.  The campaign includes ethnic and religious associations, advocacy groups, groups devoted to the special interests of various categories of persons, and traditional service organizations:  Catholics for a Free Choice ("pro-choice organization of Catholics"), La Casa De Puerto Rico (group furthering "social, economic and political well being of the Puerto Rican community"), Girl Scouts Council of Southwestern Connecticut (group "for girls age 5-17"), the Indian Law Resource Center (an "Indian organization providing free legal help to Native American tribes"), and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (group reaching "students for Jesus Christ").  The Campaign includes gay rights advocacy and legal defense organizations:  Stonewall Foundation (which describes itself as "[i]mprov[ing] attitudes" toward homosexuality and "educat[ing] on behalf of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered people" and does not allow persons opposed to the gay rights agenda to "speak" for it or "represent" it); Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (a gay rights legal advocacy organization); Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (a support group that seeks to counter traditional religious and moral views concerning homosexuality).  With all of these groups and subject matters included, including the subject matters of religion and homosexuality, it is unconstitutional for the State to single out Boy Scout councils to be excluded because of Boy Scouts' viewpoint.  The State has no business penalizing Boy Scouts because of how they define what it is to lead a "morally straight" life.